Ideas Come From God

Posts

“Ideas come from God” – Einstein

The second of three articles by Paul Ellson, author of The Beautiful Union of science, philosophy and religion.

Introduction

It is widely recognised that the best scientists are intuitive and that the ‘feel’ for the subject is important. This would not be apparent from reading formal scientific papers where the role that any intuition might play is omitted. Intuition is a subjective quality and yet an oft-stated goal of science is objectivity. I find this interesting, especially as, at the 2005 Hay Festival, I was present to hear Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society, and Sir John Maddox, former editor of Nature, agree that scientists cannot be truly objective. It is ironic that the detached and dispassionate tone required by scientific institutions and journals are part of the structure that supports the illusion of objectivity. True scientists are driven and passionate and they are as experimental and intuitive as any artist. Says Carlo Rubbia, Nobel laureate and former head of the prestigious CERN laboratory, “Scientific discovery is an irrational act. It’s an intuition which turns out to be reality at the end of it.”1

The successful scientist has a passionate and persistent character often fuelled by a childlike exhilaration in the quest for knowledge. The scientist becomes completely involved in his or her subject and, over time, gets a feel for the patterns behind the facts. The full absorption of information and the individual’s aspirations within the particular discipline primes the mind for revelation. But these revelations tend to come when the mind is at rest and when there is room for something new, a space for some new influence to enter into. Sometimes it is after, perhaps in despair, the mind has stopped trying. Also, periods of relaxation and recreation, or periods of sleep, when the mind is more fully rested are common times of entry for the new. The solution, however contrary to the line of thought held before, seems to suddenly appear in the mind. Max Planck, the German physicist who framed the Quantum Theory in 1900 seems to have acquire the idea in this way. He said that he could never fathom why he thought such a thing. His discovery marked the beginning of quantum physics – a major turning point for science. However, ask any scientist what was the greatest scientific breakthrough of the 20th century and the reply would likely be Einstein’s work on relativity. Significantly, this major leap forward involved sleep related revelations.

“Ideas come from God”

In writing Einstein – a life,2 Denis Brian brought in recollections of Einstein and his close associates, delving deep into the process that brought about the groundbreaking Theory of Special Relativity – perhaps the greatest leap in the history of science. It was early spring 1905 and Einstein was aged 26. He had spent an evening going over his ideas with a friend; they were looking for the missing pieces of the puzzle:“….. he returned home in despair, feeling he would never discover “the true laws, based on known facts’. There is no record of how late he went to bed that night. . . . . . He woke next morning in great agitation, as if, he said, “a storm had broke loose in my mind”. With it came the answers. He had finally tapped “God’s thoughts” and tuned into the master plan for the universe.”3

Einstein told his assistant and biographer Banesh Hoffman that “‘Ideas come from God.’” Hoffman was aware that Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God and explained that, “This was his metaphorical way of speaking. You cannot command the idea to come, it will come when it’s good and ready. He put it those terms: ‘Ideas come from God.’” 4

Einstein’s sudden revelation as he woke that morning was transcendent. His ideas, or shall I say, the ideas received by him, reshaped the world and continue to have a huge impact on the whole of society. 5

In the weeks following his revelation, using every spare moment, ‘as if possessed’ he put the ideas on paper, filling thirty-one pages. Denis Brian tells us that the final paper“..was strangely free of footnotes or references, as if the inspiration had indeed come, if not from God, from some otherworldly source.”6

Groundbreaking mathematician and author Gregory Chaitin of theIBM Watson Research Center explains it this way: “I don’t know where ideas come from. I can only look at my own experience creating a new mathematical theory and say I don’t know where it comes from. I don’t do it mechanically . . . my mind seems sharper and I seem more perceptive about everything. I seem to be in some kind of energized or more perceptive state and it’s a wonderful state to be in. It doesn’t last long. It feels wonderful.”7

In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James wrote of the four qualities ecstasy: ineffability, passivity, transience, and noesis.

Noesis comes from the Greek nous, relating to reason, intellect and understanding, particularly regarding to the understanding of basic principles or absolutes.Nous, along with gnosis can be traced back to the Sanskrit jna:to perceive, apprehend and understand.8From jna through gnosis and nous we have come to our word “knowledge,” originally referring to knowledge experienced directly; an enlightenment accompanied by a feeling of certitude. James wrote of the “noetic sense of truth” and the sense of authority implicit in these states, which he classified as mystical. “Although so similar to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time.”9

Such an authority without a material basis may seem unreasonable, for nowadays, when we speak of reason we tend to think only in terms of forming an opinion. However, for the ancient Greeks, and for those before, there were two levels of reason. The higher reason is the reason that knows – gnosis, a state where the reason is given; experienced. The lower reason is the one that theorises and forms opinions, – doxa. Further back in time we find the Sanskrit jnana, which Monier-Williams defines as“the higher knowledge (derived from meditation on the one universal spirit)” and daksha: expert, clever; strengthening the intellectual faculty.

Regarding the word reason itself; I find it interesting that, in the Sanskrit, ‘ri’ is the word for heaven. When we look for ‘the reason’, we look for the ‘cause that explains something’. In the light of the ancient natural philosophy dictum ‘as above, so below’, this makes sense. Also we have the Sanskrit ‘rita’; true; enlightened; divine law, ‘rishu’: knowing, and ‘rishi’: saint; knower; seer– the one who directly experiences. Here again, at root, we see reason related to direct cognition. This broader understanding of reason and gnosis persisted for millennia, the Gnostics championing direct cognition well into Christian times. Perhaps they found inspirationfrom St John 14:17 where Jesus tells his Disciples: Even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not; neither knoweth him: But ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. However, since the Church domination of the West and its hostility toward Gnosticism and its attendant nomenclature, the deeper meanings of gnosis and reason have become lost. Reason now only refers to the opinion forming, lower, reason.

Beyond the veil

Of late there has been recognition by scientists that ancient natural philosophers, up to and including Aristotle, acknowledged abilities to know the laws of nature through direct cognition. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking puts it this way: “The Aristotelian tradition also held that one could work out all the laws that govern the universe by pure thought: it was not necessary to check by observation”.10To the western mind, such ideas now seem a world away, but from ancient times to the present day, eastern philosophers have continued to address this subject frequently: The following is an example from China, found in stanza 62 of the Tao Te Ching [c.500BCE], where the Tao is ‘the unproduced producer of all that is’.11

Why did the ancient masters esteem the Tao?

Because, being one with the Tao,

When you seek, you find. 12

A clue to the process involved is given in Stanza 10:

Can you step back from your own mind

and thus understand all things?13

Stepping back from your own mind is crucial to gnosis. Of course, this stepping back takes place naturally during sleep and those, like Einstein,whose minds have been primed can, on occasion, take advantage of that process innocently. This may seem bewildering, after all, even for the gifted student, understanding Einstein’s work can be difficult enough, let alone understanding how it could have been cognised in the first place. Understanding requires humility. The word means ‘to stand under’. One cannot rise to greater knowledge when one already assumes superiority. The ‘beginner’s mind’ advocated in eastern philosophy speaks of the innocence required for success.

A similar stance is recommended by leading scientific thinkers. In their book, The Matter Myth, taking Einstein’s theories as an example, Paul Davies and John Gribbin give advice on how such knowledge, which defies everyday notions about reality, can come to be understood by students. They recommend ” . . merely inquiring about what is observed and not trying to formulate a mental model of what is, in some absolute sense.”14 Regarding the envisaging of Einstein’s ‘closed but unbounded’ universe, the writer says: “I remembered my resolution not to try to envisage an absolute reality, not to struggle for some sort of God’s-eye-view of the whole universe from the outside. Instead I would take the humbler perspective …..”15

Natural philosophers tell us that real humility releases us from attachment to all prior concepts; attachment to our own ideas or those of others. With this level of humility we discard all of our thoughts and imaginings. It allows us into the realm of impersonality where the non-relative, Absolute, can be contacted. Here, in essence, all things are found to rest.The Gnostics knew that any attempt at an intellectual construct of a big picture would be flawed because the intellect, which deals with the parts, would obstruct appreciation of the whole. Instead Gnostics used the mind as a receptacle. By this stage of mental development the use of the imagination has expanded the capacity of the mind, priming it for further use. Now the mind must be emptied and an innocence must be present, a state which allows the bigger picture to enter. As J B S Haldane said: “The universe may not just be queer to imagine, but queerer than we can imagine.”16And so, to sure-footedly approach the truth behind phenomena, use of the imagination is suspended. Rudolf Steiner explained: For the point is not that I arbitrarily create visions for myself, but that reality creates them in me.17 In order to help take this statement seriously we must acknowledge that successful natural philosophers such as Steiner were most sincere, thorough and scientific in their approach.

Another good example of this level of excellence would be Alice A Bailey. She was a well-known 20th century natural philosopher who claimed extra-sensory skills. She advocated White Magic: the use of hidden (occult) knowledge for the benefit of humanity. In A Treatise on White Magic she lists five things that those who choose to tread that path need to cultivate.

“1. Consecration of motive. 2. Utter fearlessness. 3. The cultivation of the imagination, balanced wisely by the reasoning faculty. 4. A capacity to weigh the evidence wisely, and to accept only that which is compatible with the highest instinct and intuition. 5. A willingness to experiment.” She continues: “These five tendencies coupled with purity of life, and regulation of thought will lead to the sphere of achievement. Remember too that it is not purposed that you should find out all the knowable, but only just as much of as it may be employed wisely for the illumination of the race and of those whom you can each, in your own place, influence.”18

Anyone who has studied the life of Einstein will recognise that he applied all of the above. The appellation, ‘philosopher-scientist’ was well deserved. The evidence points to the fact that leading scientists, albeit unconsciously, use the attributes of the most mystical of natural philosophers as their aspiration for knowledge enlivens deeper cognitive talents. I believe that in the future, as science develops an understanding of consciousness, seekers after truth will use these attributes consciously.

Some 20th century philosopher-sages have been particularly helpful in relating their knowledge to that of modern science. Sri Aurobindo (1872 – 1950) explains the forces at work ‘beyond the veil’: “The wall between consciousness and force, impersonality and a personality, becomes much thinner when one goes beyond the veil of matter. If one looks at a working from the side of impersonal force one sees a force or energy at work acting for a purpose or with a result. If one looks from the side of being one sees a being possessing, guiding and using or else representative of and used by a conscious force as its instrument of specialised action and expression…. . In modern science it has been found that if you look at the movement and energy, it appears on one side to be a wave and act as a wave, on the other as a mass of particles and to act as a mass of particles each acting its own way. It is somewhat the same principle here.”19

Aurobindo’s biographer, Satprem, explains further: “A Christian saint, who has the vision of the Virgin, say, and an Indian who has the vision of Durga20may be seeing the same thing, they may have contacted the same plane of consciousness and the same forces; but quite obviously Durga would mean nothing to the Christian, and moreover, were this force to manifest in its pure state, that is, as a luminous impersonal vibration, it would not be accessible to the consciousness of either the worshiper of the Virgin or the devotee of Durga, or at any rate would not speak to their hearts.”21

These two quotations touch upon fundamentals of perception, the possibilities of viewing frequencies in either wave or particle form and, furthermore, the interpretation of frequency in order to create a narrow but meaningful ‘reality’. In the previous article ‘Non-locality and Omnipresence’, I mentioned research that showed that the mind may affect outcomes in scientific research, and therefore we must ask: How then can direct cognition be trusted? This is where Alice Bailey’s prescription, “…. purity of life, and regulation of thought will lead to the sphere of achievement”, enters in. As with any experiment, the quality of the apparatus and the quality of control are of the highest importance. In this case, body and mind are the apparatus and the means of control. Neurophysiologically speaking, the apparatus requires pure foods and drink because it must not be distracted by discomfort or illness, and the mind requires the Great Peace, a mental equilibrium where, due to innocence and humility there is no agenda. To the deeply religious and the natural philosopher alike, access to the soul is the link to the Great Peace of pure consciousness. Here religion begins to reveal its original motivation. Satprem wrote on the phenomena of religious visions and their subjective nature but there are links here to the scientific world, starting with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. It was established by German physicist Werner Heisenberg, and gave a theoretical limit to the precision with which a particle’s momentum and position can be measured simultaneously the more accurately the one is determined, the more uncertainty there is in the other.

Writing in the New York Times Magazine, Daniel Menaker homed-in on the subjective implications. He put it this way: “When Heisenberg threw this stone of hard mathematical physics into the pool of philosophy, its ripples required us to see ourselves, each of our own selves, as interferers with whatever we run across. Such ideas of the conscious human self as an automatic interferer, a changer, a polluter of reality, may have always been a part of philosophy or even art, but it was Heisenburg who for the first time scientifically demonstrated that our very own efforts fully to understand what surrounds us must defeat their own purpose.”22

The Beautiful Union of science, philosophy and religion23 gives further, ample, evidence of the mind’s ability to interfere in all it perceives. What then can be the true significance of religion in all this – are religious practices a distraction or do they have a purpose? At its root, buried deeply beneath a historical veil of politics, sophistry and intellectualisation, religion is a science, a science of consciousness. And, after shaking off the dust of obfuscation, it may be recognised as complementary to modern science with both disciplines finding their home within the embrace of natural philosophy. Natural philosophy seeks ‘knowledge of the causes of the laws of all things’24 and religion, from re-ligio – ‘to bind back’ – has the potential to take the practitioner in consciousness ‘back’ to the cause which natural philosophers cite as the home of all knowledge. It is a route to gaining knowledge through direct experience of the creator, the creative force.

Transcendent experience is facilitated by great peace of mind. But rare is the individual who, without training, achieves great peace of mind. Therefore, a major goal of religious techniques such as meditation, repetition (such as rosary use), and certain prayers, is to cultivate a stillness of mind wherein, unlike deep sleep, the mind remains conscious and attentive. Here, one may note that, to the Pythagorians, who were a deeply religious group, mathematical knowledge itself derived from contemplation.25 But only when meditation has done its work can true contemplation take place. Meditation stills the mind, contemplation uses the stilled mind to wonder in an innocent, subtle and yet focused fashion, thereby inducing the knowledge of the part in relation to the whole.

Binding back

Based upon a profound grasp of psycho-physiological processes, various systems were developed in order to ‘re-ligio’ – bind back – the practitioner to the Great Peace. For the body, a pure diet and exercises were advocated to encourage abundant health and energy – if the body is ill or fighting illness then it is likely to be distracted in contemplation. For the mind, imagery was advocated for particular stages of development as were meditations of various kinds. Many such practices are still extant but not widely understood. This needs to change.

I believe that, through identification with the best of leading scientific thought and with the integrative work of natural philosophers both ancient and modern, an opportunity is now arising for religion to return to its rightful place. Study of the ultimate cause by whatever name: big bang, pre-big bang (cosmologists), unified field etc., (physicists), The Lord, Jehova etc., (religious) or consciousness, the creative force etc., (natural philosophers) brings all of these groups together and a realisation of their mutually supportive nature is long overdue. How many western scientists have taken the reports of Christian mystics seriously? Despite Church doctrine, the most dedicated devotee can experience gnosis and throughout history this has occurred numerous times.

From a multitude of available accounts, let us first look at the words of the German, Jacob Boehme [1575-1624]: “In this my earnest and Christian Seeking and Desire”, he wrote, “the Gate was opened to me, that in one Quarter of an Hour I saw and knew more than if I had been many years together at an University, at which I exceedingly admired, and thereupon turned my Praise to God for it.” The reader should be aware that the date of this revelation is 1610 and that the terminology is that of a devout Christian. Nevertheless, the summary that follows embraces the realms of chemistry, biology, physics and cosmology: “ For I saw and knew the Being of all Beings, the Byss and the Abyss, and the Eternal Generation of the Holy Trinity, the Descent and Original of the World, and of all creatures through the divine wisdom. . . And I saw and knew the whole working Essence in the Evil and the Good, and the Original and Existence of each of them; and likewise how the fruitful bearing Womb of Eternity brought forth . . .Yet however I must begin to labour in those great mysteries, as a Child that goes to School. I saw it as in a great Deep in the Internal. For I had a thorough view of the Universe . . “26

The Englishman George Fox [1624-91] became the founder of the Society of Friends (Quakers) but a remarkable experience at the age of twenty-four almost led him into a scientific path: ‘The creation was opened to me; and it was showed me how all things had their [divine] names given them, according to their nature and virtue. And I was at a stand in my mind whether I should practice physic for the good of mankind, seeing the nature and virtue of the creatures were so opened to me by the Lord . .”27(Author’s parenthesis)

The above quotes are broad in scope. They indicate the magnitude of gnostic experience but offer nothing that can be easily crosschecked. Let us now look at something a little more specific

The History of the Moon

For some time scientists have been looking into the history of the Moon and its relation to our planet. Furthering work on a widely accepted theory first proposed in 1975,28 J. Richard Gott III and Edward Belbruno, both of Princeton University,29 posted a paper on arVix.org in May 2004.30It refers to a time billions of years ago when a small planet shared Earth’s orbit. Their research and computer simulations show a scenario where this planet eventually became engaged with the Earth in a horseshoe-like orbit. Furthermore, around 4.5 billion years ago, being drawn in, this planet glanced off the Earth not once but twice. Gott and Belbruno have named this planet Theia. It is postulated that its collisions with the Earth created the moon. Theia’s iron core sank into the Earth whilst its lighter elements, rocks from its mantle, spiraled off into space. They estimate that 80 percent of Theia is now the body of the moon. Their paper is one in a growing body of work which points to this kind of Earth-Moon relationship and it has gained much credibility amongst fellow astrophysicists.

Many years prior to this work, a British seer, the Reverend John Todd-Ferrier [1855 – 1943], cognised strikingly similar activity; Todd-Ferrier authored a number of books and additionally, many of his Services, Sermons, Letters and Talks were gathered up in a series of volumes called The Herald of The Cross. References to the history of the Moon (or Luna) are scattered amongst these works. Amongst them he says, “The Moon was not a satellite, she was a companion and planet. She moved with the Earth round a given centre.”31 “And the Moon was a companion planet giving balance and aid to the Earth in her ministry . . . . But in order to help the Earth at a very critical period, the Moon gave up her own glory . . . She gave up her atmosphere, she also gave up her magnetic plane.“32 Clearly, because an estimated 80% of the companion planet is now known as the moon, Todd Ferrier sees no reason to call that original planet by a different name. He also said that this giving up occurred at a second interaction and that, “Her atmosphere as well her inner seas were drawn down, and her higher magnetic elements are mingled with the atmosphere and seas of the Earth. In addition to that her magnetic plane was also drawn down, and is mixed in with its elements with the magnetic plane at of the Earth. This is the reason for the moon’s tremendous leverage power of the seas, . . .”33

Like many natural philosophers, the Reverend Todd Ferrier related all Celestial activity to an omnipotent divine power. “Luna, lent to the Earth, at Divine command her magnetic plane.”34 Perhaps it is this perception and terminology which scientists find alienating. I can only recommend open-mindedness, it is a fundamental of good science as is the ability to comprehend the big picture.

Scientists are learning that it is not enough to ‘prove’ the value of something in relative isolation. All of nature is related. Such isolated ‘proofs’ are temporary indicators that will shift as the knowledge horizon expands. This expansion can be safely hastened by practices that lead to gnosis. Packets of knowledge can only be fully understood by their relationships to the whole. If you look at the whole you can also see the parts that make it up. If you look at the part alone, you cannot see the whole. As with a jigsaw puzzle, the best practice is to pick up a piece and, prior to positioning, review the whole picture. We place the piece and, if it requires further consideration, we step back and review the whole picture along with the pieces in place and those yet to be used. If we can consider it all in one scan, we can know more easily if our choices of pieces and positions have been correct. The early natural philosophers knew how to do this with nature itself and today aspects of that knowledge are, albeit unconsciously, used by many of us, including scientists. The key moment of inspiration will often come outside of the lab, without focus on the problem. Something in nature will prime the mind to receive the answer. One may be dreamily contemplating the movements of a river or of clouds in the sky, or looking at a leaf. A period of sleep may do the trick or, when the rules are known and adhered to, one could even ask out loud to be enlightened regarding a certain matter. Knowledge through direct experience will result.

We have already seen how personal mental activity is strong on interference. True direct cognition is gained beyond the realm of the personal; that is the value of being able to empty oneself. Operating within discernable laws, these experiences are natural occurrences available to all of humankind through knowledge of the mechanics of consciousness.

This is indicated in ancient language. In Sanskrit, Manah is mind. Here we have a clue to the meaning behind “So God created man in his own image. In the image of God created he him.”35 When man is made in God’s own image, scripture is telling us that, in essence, humankind is made of mind, the body being mortal and simply a temporary vehicle for universal consciousness. The Kena Upanishad [c.500 BCE]36puts it this way, “Therefore He (God) is the Mind of the (human) mind too”.37 [Author’s parenthesis]

Recall the words of the scientists: Carlo Rubbia: “Scientific discovery is an irrational act. It’s an intuition . . .” Gregory Chaitin: “I seem to be in some kind of energized or more perceptive state and it’s a wonderful state to be in.” And, Einstein: ‘Ideas come from God.’ To the seasoned seer, God is the font of all knowledge. Hence the words of John Todd Ferrier: “It would fill me with unutterable sorrow if in trying to help you by revealing something of my own experiences, you thought of them only in a personal way, and lost that which lies behind them, and consequently failed to attribute them to their right Source, even as my Lord from Whom everything comes to me. As I have nothing of my own, everything in my experience is related to Him. I could not live and work for you, apart from Him.”3738

______________________________

The above text features extracts from The Beautiful Union of science, philosophy and religion. In the next article I shall use further extracts from the book to look at how re-ligio researchers into consciousness can add an extra dimension to the art of theorising.

Paul Ellson.

Paul Ellson is a natural philosopher. The Beautiful Union of science, philosophy and religion is available via his website www.paulellson.com and other outlets.

Notes and References:

Quoted in Leaping Over the Gates of Logic: The best science is always inspired. Published in New Scientist 8thAugust 1985.

TheLife of Jacob Boehme, p xv, in volume I of his Collected Works, English Translation, London, 1764-81, as sourced in Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evelyn Underhill. p 257. Pub. Oneworld, Oxford. 1993 Edition.

The Journal of George Fox, volume i. Cap. ii., Edited from the MSS. By N Penney. Cambridge, 1911. This material sourced in Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evelyn Underhill. p257-8. Pub. Oneworld, Oxford. 1993 Edition.

William Hartmann at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Ariz. USA, and independently by Al Cameron at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge Mass. USA.

Gott is at the Dept. of Astrophysical Sciences and Belbruno is Visiting Research Collaborator, Dept. of Applied and Computational Mathematics.

The Herald of The Cross XIX. p146. published by The Order of The Cross, London 1945

Ibid.

From an address given in London on March 12th 1933, printed in The Herald of The Cross IX. p.17. published by The Order of The Cross, London 1957]

From an address given in Hertfordshire, England on August 2nd 1933, printed in The Herald of The Cross XXXIV. p.102. published by The Order of The Cross, London 2004.

Genesis 1:27.

Kena Upanishad forms part of the Upanishad Brahmana of the Talavakara branch of the Sama Veda.

From Shankara’s commentary on the Kena Upanishad: Page 45, Eight Upanishads, volume one, with the commentary of Shankaracharya. Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. Second edition January 1989. Published by Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, India.

Dreams, Visions and Recoveries in The Herald of The Cross Volume XIII 1940 p31. Note: In keeping with the times (early 20th century), John Todd Ferrier tended to couch his terms in the masculine but explained that Deity was both masculine and feminine.